Main menu

Post navigation

A natural resistance or reluctance to see nutrient deficiencies

As a rule, doctors don’t believe that nutrient deficiencies make a real difference to our health. Sad because nutrient deficiencies are the most treatable of all medical problems. Living in luxury, American doctors don’t know they are still living in Darwin’s world, a world without luxuries, a world without free lunches, a world of scarcity of resources, a world of deficiency in everything important, a world in which every single process, down to the molecular level, was selected for in intense struggles for existence for billions of years before us, selective processes driven by fighting for resources that are in scarce supply, and even when there is a lot more of a resource around than we actually need (like iron), most of it is usually in an unusable form – that is, just another form of deficiency.

Moreover, they do not want to detect nutrient deficiencies or make any effort to deal with them. They measure calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in the bloodstream, and if they are in the “reference range,” which is inflated by virtue of including people who are actual abnormal on both ends, and the reading is almost always in range, there is no problem. Utter rubbish. Solvable problems are hidden when you look in the wrong place for them.

Doctors look for vitamin K deficiency by measuring prothrombin clotting time. Using a cascade hides many defects in the components – a terribly insensitive way of measuring deficiency. The liver is a terrible place to look for vitamin K deficiency – their assay is under-carboxylation of clotting proteins made in an organ that stores vitamin K. Insane.

Doctors do not want to see vitamin K deficiency.

But it is worse than that.

In the 1989 US RDA publication (the 10th edition), evidence was presented of serious vitamin K deficiency in the US population, even using the terribly insensitive cascade assay that uses proteins made in an organ that stores vitamin K. The evidence consisted of newborns being routinely vitamin K deficient (this could be a defect of nature or poor vitamin K or poor vitamin K ADME network status of the mothers throughout pregnancy, and especially in the terminal part of the last trimester when the fetal liver begins building its meager stores), nursing mothers’ producing milk that is terribly deficient in vitamin K (this might be another defect of nature, but it could also be poor diet [which includes not taking enough fat and/or emulsifier with the vitamin K, poor supplementation of vitamin K, or a problem with undernourishment of one or more of vitamin K’s ADME network constituents), and randomly chosen elder patients in a hospital being tested and finding that 75% were deficient in vitamin K, using the inappropriate and insensitive assay. Might it not be 100% if the appropriate assay were used? At the end of all this and more facts that clearly point to a vitamin K problem, the government concluded that there is no evidence of a problem. If we see no evil, hear no evil, then there is no evil. Incredible.